CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 7066 of 2001 PETITIONER: Himmat Singh & Ors RESPONDENT: I.C.I. India Ltd. & Ors DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31/01/2008 BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissing
the writ petitions filed by the appellants. Challenge before the
High Court was to the order passed by the Presiding Labour
Court (II) U.P. Kanpur in Adjudication case-Arbitration dispute
No. 164 of 1989.
2. The following question was sent to the Labour Court for
decision under Section 4(iv) of the U.P. State Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‘State Act):
“Whether 61 labourers mentioned in the
Appendix should be declared permanent? If
so, then from which date and with what other
particulars?”
3. The Labour Court held that 61 labourers connected with
the case do not possess the right to be declared permanent
under the employer- respondent No. 1. So far as the question
to be made permanent under the contractor, it was found that
they did not want to be declared permanent under the
contractor.
4. Challenge in the writ petition revolved around the
question as to the effect of the Contract Labour (Regulation
and Abolition) Act, 1970 (in short the “Act”). In the
background of the definition of the word “employer” as in
clause IV of Section 2(i)(iv) of the State Act, The Indian
Explosive Limited is a manufacturer of Urea and is covered
under the Act. It is registered under Chapter III of the same
Act and has many licensed contractor including one Abdul
Rehman (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Contractor’). These
licensed contractors engaged many persons to do the work
contracted with them. Fertilizer Workers Union (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘Union’) filed an application under Rule 25
(v)(a) of the U.P. Contract Labour (Regularisation and
Abolition) Rules, 1975 (in short the “Rules”) framed under the
Act before the Labour Commissioner.
5. This was for the relief that the different persons working
under the different licensed contractors are doing work similar
to the work assigned to the workmen of the company and
should have similar conditions of service regarding wages,
holidays etc. Proceedings were initiated. In the proceedings
under Rule 25 of the Rules, the Labour Commissioner by his
order dated 15.12.1984 allowed the application so far as
persons engaged by the Contractor Rehman and one more
licensed contractor but for rest of the persons application for
the Union was dismissed. The order of the Labour
Commissioner was upheld by the High Court. During
pendency of the proceedings, under Rule 25 disputes were
raised by the Union which is the subject matter of
consideration for the benefit of the workmen engaged by the
Contractor-Rehman. As noted above, the Labour Court
rejected the application.
6. Mr. P.K. Jain, learned counsel for the appellants
submitted that the High Court’s approach is hyper technical
and the benefits intended by various beneficial Statutes have
not been kept in view.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand
supported the judgment.
8. A few observations made by the High Court which are
relevant need to be noted. It was held by the High Court as
follows:
“The labour court has held that the petitioners
were not working as helpers to the fitters; they
were not paid by the company; and were
engaged on contract for intermittent work i.e.
they did not have regular or permanent work.
The work that the petitioners do may be similar
to the work of the workman of the company,
but they are not doing the work that is ordinary
part of the industry. This is for reason that
they-
? did not have permanent work;
? were engaged in intermittent work
and
? themselves claimed to be workmen of
the contractor Rehman in proceedings
under Rule 25 of the Labour Contract Act
and got benefit under the same.”
9. Similarly, the Labour Court noted that contractor
Rehman had applied to the administration for licence under
the State Contract Labour Act and considering the nature of
the contract licence has been granted to him.
10. In Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
[2006(12) SC 233] it was inter-alia held as follows:
“The workmen whether before the Labour
Court or in writ proceedings were represented
by the same union. A trade union registered
under the Trade Unions Act is entitled to
espouse the cause of the workmen. A definite
stand was taken by the employees that they
had been working under the contractors. It
would, thus, in our opinion, not lie in their
mouth to take a contradictory and
inconsistent plea that they were also the
workmen of the principal employer. To raise
such a mutually destructive plea is
impermissible in law. Such mutually
destructive plea, in our opinion, should not be
allowed to be raised even in an industrial
adjudication. Common law principles of
estoppel, waiver and acquiescence are
applicable in an industrial adjudication.”
11. In view of the factual position highlighted above and the
ratio of the decision in Steel Authority’s case (supra), the
inevitable result is that the appeal is sans merit, deserves
dismissal, which we direct with no order as to costs.